Habib reunited with family
After more than three years in US detention as a terror suspect, Mamdouh Habib has arrived back in Australia.
The 48-year-old was transported from Guantanamo Bay on a government-chartered aircraft. He was flown from Cuba to Tahiti over Central America, in line with US requirements for him not to be flown over American airspace.
The plane touched down at the ExecuJet terminal of Sydney Airport shortly after 3:30pm (AEDT).
The media was kept at a distance from the terminal regularly used by the Prime Minister.
Four officials boarded the plane and within half-an-hour Mr Habib was escorted onto a smaller plane and flown to Bankstown airport.
From a distance it was clear Mr Habib was walking unaided and wearing a white shirt with a jacket over his arm.
A convoy of cars awaited Mr Habib's arrival at Bankstown where he was reunited with his family.
Mr Habib's sister Sally says her family is over-joyed to have him home.
"I'm so excited, but I know he needs a rest and he's happy, he's happy now and I'm happy too, all my family is happy," she said.
Watched
The federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, says Mr Habib will be monitored by government agencies like ASIO and the Federal Police.
Although no charges have been laid against Mr Habib, Mr Ruddock says he is still a person of concern.
He says relevant agencies may want to interview Mr Habib in the future.
"Well, look the point I would make is that any activities are undertaken in accordance with the law and I've made it clear that relevant agencies will pursue the obligations that they have under law," he said.
Mr Ruddock says Mr Habib appeared to be in good physical condition when he arrived in Sydney.
"He slept during the journey, he was accompanied by his lawyer - his United States lawyer - he was accompanied by a medical practitioner, who was accompanied by four security officers and two government officials, one from Foreign Affairs and one from my department," he said.
"My officers have reported to be that he appeared to be in good health."
Mr Habib was detained by the US military at Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of working with Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and having prior knowledge of the September 11, 2001 terrorism attacks on the United States.
Quote:Aug - Three Britons released from Guantanamo Bay say Mr Habib "was in a catastrophic state, mental and physical" and received no medical attention for recurrent bleeding suffered after being tortured in Egypt. A US investigation finds Mr Habib and Mr Hicks were not abused while detained by US captors.
So what was the deal with the prostitute at Guantanimo? Apparently, Mr. Habib was tortured in Egypt!
dlowan wrote:
In my view it is shameful.
Regarding that the UK has as strong anti terrorism laws as the USa - and that they just let those Guantamo go home, I would say, if I were an Australian, 'very shameful'.
Which brings me back to Phoenix' argument that Australia didn't have anti-terrorism laws at that time: following this logic, at least those persons from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordania, Pakistan etc had had to be released at once.
However, I've thought that they were trying to keep them under US law.
No, under martial law it was.
Wrong again, I think.
Never mind, some Wild West Law.
It also wouldn't of happened if Mr. Habib had not been actively assissting terrorists.
Phoenix32890 wrote:So what was the deal with the prostitute at Guantanimo? Apparently, Mr. Habib was tortured in Egypt!
Yeah - the US outsources the torture it isn't prepared to do to its Middle Eastern allies - where torture is common and extreme.
A lot of these folk have been in Middle Eastern countries - like Egypt, Saudi Arabia - to be tortured before being imprisoned in Guantanamo.
Quote:In one instance of the torture alleged by Mr Hopper, a prostitute stood over Mr Habib and menstruated on him.
Torture??? Humiliating, yes. Life threatening, definitely not. I am sure that those men, whose last living view of the world was the sight of blood spurting out of their carotid arteries, would have much rather been subjected to a prostitute menstruating over them.
Quote:In one instance of the torture alleged by Mr Hopper, a prostitute stood over Mr Habib and menstruated on him.
Torture??? Humiliating, yes. Life threatening, definitely not. I am sure that those men, whose last living view of the world was the sight of blood spurting out of their carotid arteries, would have much rather been subjected to a prostitute menstruating over them.
Okay, I'll look. Thanks.
I'm waiting, in great anticipation, for Mr Habib's account of what happened to him to be published. And I'll also be watching, very carefully, to see how our Attorney-General responds. I wouldn't be at all surprised if even an ATTEMPT to publish Habib's story will be gagged. For "security" grounds, of course! :wink:
The real worry, for the Australian government, will be the inevitable scrutiny & debate about it's part in this whole sad, sorry saga. The lengths that it's gone to to support US policy & interests, at the expense of Australian citizens' rights. ( I'm referring to David Hicks here, too.) The media will have a field day. This in a country which strongly opposed the Iraqi invasion in the first place & where most people believe our government lied to us about our reason for our involvement.
And, of course, the US government cannot afford to have the details of Mr Habib's treatment at Guantanamo Bay & in Egypt published, say nothing of believed. For obvious reasons. Enough of that sort of damaging publicity already. Should Habib's account ever see the light of day & gain credibility, some minor official or other will be held responsible, as usual .. certainly not government policy! The same old story!. <sigh>
msolga wrote:I'm waiting, in great anticipation, for Mr Habib's account of what happened to him to be published. And I'll also be watching, very carefully, to see how our Attorney-General responds. I wouldn't be at all surprised if even an ATTEMPT to publish Habib's story will be gagged. For "security" grounds, of course! :wink:
The real worry, for the Australian government, will be the inevitable scrutiny & debate about it's part in this whole sad, sorry saga. The lengths that it's gone to to support US policy & interests, at the expense of Australian citizens' rights. ( I'm referring to David Hicks here, too.) The media will have a field day. This in a country which strongly opposed the Iraqi invasion in the first place & where most people believe our government lied to us about our reason for our involvement.
And, of course, the US government cannot afford to have the details of Mr Habib's treatment at Guantanamo Bay & in Egypt published, say nothing of believed. For obvious reasons. Enough of that sort of damaging publicity already. Should Habib's account ever see the light of day & gain credibility, some minor official or other will be held responsible, as usual .. certainly not government policy! The same old story!. <sigh>
Yes - I thought they had said he would not be allowed to speak to the media?????
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=105323&storyid=2565273
Sheiks of hate turn freedom against us
By DAVID PENBERTHY
January 26, 2005
HERE'S a challenge for swimwear designers. Britain's advertising watchdog last week banned a series of television commercials featuring bikini-clad women because they were offensive to Muslims.
Stand by for the burqini, a fetching one-piece ensemble made entirely of black hessian, measuring 2m in length and equipped with a small vent through which women can stick their snorkel.
Also in Britain, the Fox network has agreed to demands from the Muslim Council of Britain for talks over a BSkyB drama depicting middle class Muslims as members of a terrorist sleeper cell. Just where do television executives dream up such fantasy?
Unless they were aiming for an accurate account of that September 11 hiccup, where middle class Muslims who were members of a terrorist sleeper cell murdered 3000 innocent people.
Again in Britain, a search and rescue service near the town of Preston had last week its funding slashed when authorities discovered it hadn't rescued enough ethnic minorities.
It wasn't that the Bowland and Pennine Mountain Rescue Team had done nothing while minority folk lay stranded at the bottom of cliffs.
In fact, it soon emerged there hadn't actually been any to rescue. But that's hardly the point.
And on Sunday, the Home Office confirmed it was considering a request, again from the Muslim Council of Britain, for this week's commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz to be made racially inclusive.
Muslim leaders are threatening to boycott the event unless it acknowledges the holocaust of the Palestinian intifada.
In Britain, the cancer of political correctness seems all the more malignant, fuelled perhaps by the fabled determination of the Brits to be unfailingly polite.
As a result, the country looks through Australian eyes like a multicultural worst-case scenario, where befuddled Poms tie themselves up in knots to address all sorts of ludicrous grievances and in doing so undermine the values which have made this country a beacon for democracy and free expression throughout the civilised world.
The above cases are almost comical. The biggest story of this past week involves a particularly nasty scumbag by the name of Omar Bakri Mohammed.
His mere presence in Britain is offensive in itself, but his rabble-rousing conduct poses a very real (but unchallenged) threat to public safety.
Bakris' case serves as a counterpoint to those who come over all weepy at the treatment of Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, whose incarceration is held up as a shameful betrayal of Western liberal principles.
The Tottenham Ayatollah, as Bakri is known, was kicked out of Saudi Arabia in 1985 for being a member of an illegal organisation. Mystifyingly, the Brits rolled out the red carpet for a guy whose stated life aim is to see the Islamic crescent flag flying over 10 Downing Street.
Not only did they let him in, the British taxpayers pay him, his wife and seven children some $750 a week in benefits, with Bakri also claiming an invalid pension of $125 a week, having injured his leg as a boy in Syria.
He's even used the Koran to justify his status as a low bludger, saying that accepting welfare from Western governments was a way of weakening the infidel.
In return for this investment, the British people get regular outpourings of hate-filled bile.
Bakri has called for the assassination of former prime minister John Major, praised the magnificent September 11 hijackers, and told rallies he can understand why young Muslim people would want to launch attacks in Britain.
Last week, a powerful investigation by The Times established Bakri is now using an internet chatroom with some 80 British-based followers to go further.
He called on young Muslims to become suicide bombers and declared Britain a Dar ul-Harb, the Arabic expression for State of War, explaining that non-Muslims had no sanctity for their own life or property.
Police have subsequently launched an investigation but due to privacy considerations there has been no official public comment on an individual, as the authorities here refer to this fellow, not wanting to suggest he's actually done anything wrong.
Perversely, the terror laws which the British Government could use to act against Bakri and have used against Sheik Abu Hamzah, the almost fictitously evil radical cleric, who has two hooks for hands (which were blown off by a landmine) are under threat from, of all places, the judiciary.
The courts, which represent the values which radical Islam wants to destroy, have ruled the new powers to detain terrorist suspects are unconstitutional and must be watered down.
What a crock. Bakri shows how the most accomplished fanatics can use Western liberal principles as a vehicle for their own brand of holy war, while we stand about agonising over the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, free association and unfettered public debate.
The truth is that authorities will eventually spring into action to stop the likes of Bakri -- provided of course that he bombs something.
Until then, it would be a betrayal of our liberal principles to do anything to a man who history may ultimately judge as a garrulous eccentric. What a lovely gamble to have to take.
